Of all the clues God left for us to find, the greatest is the light, the Shekhinah. From that clue we can unfold a true picture of the deity.

I think that 'for' should be removed in the bold sentence: 'God left us to find' is right instead of 'God left for us to find'. Could you tell me if my view is right or wrong? If wrong, can you tell me why?

Of all the clues God left for us to find, the greatest is the light, the Shekhinah. From that clue we can unfold a true picture of the deity.

I think that 'for' should be removed in the bold sentence: 'God left us to find' is right instead of 'God left for us to find'. Could you tell me if my view is right or wrong? If wrong, can you tell me why?

No, you can't remove 'for' . Doing so will totally change the meaning of the sentence.

In the underlined sentence, 'us' is the indirect object. If you remove 'for', 'us' will become the direct object._________________Mary W. Ng
Helping students learn grammar
http:www.aimpublishing.com

"He left us to cope on our own." in which case "us" is a direct object,

and

"he left us a note", in which case the direct object is clearly the note and "us", although it doesn't look like it, is an indirect object.

It's like a short version of "he left a note for us"

In the example here, the part "he left us to find" would look like the first example, but the presence of "clues" as the direct object earlier in the sentence should help the reader to realize that "us" is still an indirect object, even if the "for" isn't there.

So for me, the sentence is the same, and just as good, with or without the "for."

I hope that helps. If it's confusing, please ask more questions.
Ian_________________All my answers refer to British English.